Constitutional Law

Plain Meaning/Strict constructionism: Works for some questions (ex. how old do you need to be to be president?) but not for many.
Original (subjective) intent: What did the drafters intend it to mean? Problems: People had many different reasons to vote for stautes, law meant different things to different people, evidentiary problem, why let a generation passed decide the fundamental liberties of our society today?
Original (objective) intent: How would a reasonable person understood those words to mean at the time it was ratified? Dictionaries are important here. Still problems with letting a past generation control today.
Precedent: Judges constrained by past decisions.
Tradition: By tradition, what meaning have americans assigned to text?

Rational basis: 1) legitimate government interest (do not need to be real, can be a hypothesized goal); 2) Minimally rational relation between the means chosen by the government and the state objective. (burden on challenger of the law)
Intermediate scrutiny: 1) "important" government objective (must be REAL, not ad hoc justifications); 2) means are substantially related to the government objective. (burden on the government)
Strict scrutiny: 1) compelling objective (must be real, cannot be ad hoc); and 2) means chose by the government must be narrowly tailored. (burden on government)

False. BOR did not originally apply to the states. Barron
Only places a constraint on federal action, not on state action. So States could take away right to speak, religion, etc.

Main concern was that we needed a check on national authority. Many thought the new federal government would be like a distant sovereign and write rulest hat would oppress some states (worried it would be another England). Also, gives more freedom to the states to make their own constitutions.

13th--Abolished slavery
14th--Broad, sweeping terms and is not limited to the problems of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
15th--spoke explicitly to racial discrimination in voting

14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US."
Art. IV: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and IMmunities of Citizens in the several States."

Laws in the south that still kept blacks inferior to whites (example: blacks can't testify in court, own/sell property).

Facts: LA created a slaughterhouse monopoly. Buchers not part of monopoly claimed a constitutional right to practice their trade. Claimed it under 14th Amendment.
Held: The privileges and immunities clause was not meant to protect individuals from state government actions and was not meant to be a basis for federal courts to invalidate state laws.
This clause is almost meaningless after Slaughterhouse.

Art. IV--rights as a citizen of a state. Most of the Ps and Is are protected in this section. Protects fundamental rights. These rights are very broadly defined in this section, but we do not give much protection to these rights because the State can take them away. Just have to treat non-citizens the same as state citizens, but no one is guaranteed these rights. No substantive protection, just an evenhandedness.
14th Amendment--These are rights as U.S. citizens, but after slaughterhouse these are narrow, gives you almost no protection. Limited rights included: Can gravel to the seat of the federal government (Crandall), right of access to natoin's seaport, right to peaceably assemble, habeas corpus, redress of grievances. All have to do with dealign with the federal govenremnt--travelign to or interacting with.

Interpret it much more narrowly than the Slaughterhouse court. Only 2 kinds of right that fall under it: 1) Fundamental constitutional rights (the really big deal ones), 2) rights of economic activity that are thought to be essential to keep the nation unified (similar to the DCC, states can't burden commerce/can't favor their own citizens).

Don't want to disrupt the balance between the state and federal government. If read it broadly, the Court would become a perpetual censor upon all the legislation of the states. It would make the states's laws all subject to Congress.

1) Right tot cross a state line (Crandall)
2) Right to be treated like a citizen of other state adn be treated as a welcome visitor (Art. IV)
3) Right to become a permanent resident of a new state and be treated the same (14th Amendment PIC) --this is the only area that SCOTUS has said the 14th Amendment does any work.

Issue: Does a statute providing lower benefits to families who have lived in CA for less than 12 months violate the PIC clause of the 14th Amendment?
Holding: Yes. The durational residency requirements violate the right to travel by denying newly-arrived citizens the same Ps and Is enjoyed by other citizens in the same state, and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny. The states legitimate interest in saving money provides no justification for its decision to discriminate among equally eligible citizens.
Reasoning: Court outlines the three elements of travel. The third one was at issue here. The court looks at the portability of the benefity. When the benefit is portable, the states can regulate it. If non-portable, there is less a state can do (heightened scrutiny). Unlike in-state tuition or divorce, with welfare benfits, you're not wroried about people leaving the state. People will enjoy benefit while in state.
Court's explanation: Wanted to save money. Court thought this was not a good enough reason b/c can save mone in other ways. There are less discriminatory ways to achieve the same goal.

Crandall: LAW CHALLENGED: If using public transport to leave state (Nevada) had to pay $1 tax (“Stagecoach tax”). HELD: Cannot tax passengers leaving the state via common carriers -->right to come to the seat of the national government. => violation on structural grounds.
Edwards: LAW CHALLENGED: "Anti-Okie law" made it a crime to bring an indigent person to CA who is not a resident of the state. HELD: Unconstitutional, but disagreed on the rationale. Majority said it was based on the DCC. Concurrence said ti was based on the 14th PIC.
Shapiro: LAW CHALLENGED: People couldn't get welfare benefits if lived there less then a year. HELD: Applied strict scrutiny under EPC.
Memorial Hospital: LAW CHALLENGED: One year resdiency was a condition to recieve nonempergency medical care. HELD: Unconstitutional under EPC. Like welfare, this is a basic necessity of life.

5th Amendment applies to federal givernement giving DP.
14th Amendment applies to state governments giving DP.
(Treat them the same)